It’s nice to know that television news anchors are more up to date on current terror plots around the world than the man who heads the agency tasked with knowing everything before everyone.

U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper drew a blank when ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked him about the arrests hours earlier of 12 men accused of plotting an al-Qaida-type attack in London. Give the guy a break… maybe going into makeup to get ready for a television interview was top priority instead.

The initial exchange with Sawyer occurs at the 3:56 mark.

“First of all, London. How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here?” Sawyer asked at the start of an interview that also included chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Clapper, puzzled by Sawyer’s question, responded, “London?” and turned to Brennan for help responding to Sawyer’s questions about the arrests that had occurred several hours before the interview took place.

Later in the interview, Sawyer told Clapper that she was “a little surprised you didn’t know about London.” “Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t,” Clapper replied.

Are you feeling safer, yet?

Here’s an exit question for you… do you think we’d be seeing the same silent reaction in the media (or on the Left - but I repeat myself) if the interviewee’s last name was Palin, instead?

‎A relatively simple example can highlight the debate going on between Democrats who want to “tax the rich” more and Republicans who think taxes ought to be lowered across the board, for everyone.

Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer tab by $20″. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?” They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. (which is actually what happens with our tax system today) So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, college professors and liberals, is how our tax system really works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

With all the controversy surrounding the TSA screening methods and general ineffectiveness, it’s probably time to remind folks that the 2001 law creating the TSA also included a provision whereby Airports can opt out of using TSA for screening in favor of private companies after 2 years:

‘‘§ 44920. Security screening opt-out program ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—On or after the last day of the 2-year period beginning on the date on which the Under Secretary transmits to Congress the certification required by section 110(c) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, an operator of an airport may submit to the Under Secretary an application to have the screening of passengers and property at the airport under section 44901 to be carried out by the screening personnel of a qualified private screening company under a contract entered into with the Under Secretary.

Contact your airport today and let them know you want them to opt out.

In an interview on 60 Minutes, Barack Obama justified his administration’s bankrupting spending spree on circumstances beyond his control. Throwing his hands up and claiming he didn’t want to have to do it, he told Steve Kroft he was forced to because of an emergency situation:

“…we were taking these steps not because of some theory that we wanted to expand government. It was because we had an emergency situation and we wanted to make sure the economy didn’t go off a cliff.”

Really? That’s an interesting explanation considering back on February 24, 2009, Obama had a strikingly different tone about his bankrupting policies:

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor’s moment came at a White House meeting with congressional leaders on day three of the new Administration. He handed President Barack Obama a list of ideas to fix the economy. Pointing to a small business tax-cut item, Obama said: “We disagree on tax policy.” When Cantor tried to justify his own position, Obama responded: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

So the arrogant community organizer in chief has gone from “my way or the highway” to “I didn’t want to do it, I had to do it”.

Nevertheless, the new talking point is now that Democrats had to blow your grandchildren’s future due to an emergency situation. Nancy Pelosi, in an interview with Dianne Sawyer, has apparently gotten the talking points, too:

She predicted Obama will serve eight years, and in language Obama used almost word for word earlier in the day at his press conference, said he will “demonstrate to the American people that what we had to do in the short term is because we had an emergency situation; some interpret it as too activist. It was an emergency and it saved us from a depression.”

Is there anyone out there not suffering from brain damage that thinks Democrats would’ve spent any less had the economy still been trucking along like it was before Democrats took control of Congress in 2006? Of course, not. Afterall, elections have consequences, right?

So let’s look at some of the items Democrats spent your grandchildren’s money on in response to this emergency:

Let’s not forget the emergency date night Obama and his wife went on, costing taxpayers several hundred thousands dollars.

Just this week, the University of New Hampshire announced that is has received $700,000 from the federal government to study… cow burps. Emergency, huh?

And the latest emergency? Obama and his wife had to take a vacation to Asia. The cost has been disputed (but we know he didn’t use Travelocity) around $2 Billion. This includes a handful of jumbo jets, some warships, several five-star hotels fully booked and enough pomp and circumstance to even make Roman Emperors blush.

Just remember all of this when Obama claims his liberal spending policies with your money is not something of his choosing, but simply his response to an economic emergency.

In her first vote as a Supreme Court Justice, Elena “I am not Kevin James” Kagan, sided with the liberal dissent when the Court cleared the way for the execution of an Arizona murderer.

The 5-4 ruling overturned orders by a federal judge in Phoenix and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that had stopped the execution by lethal injection of Jeffrey Landrigan.

His lawyers, in a last-ditch appeal, had raised questions about one of the drugs used in the execution. Since the only U.S. manufacturer of sodium thiopental had suspended production, Arizona officials said they had obtained a supply of the drug from a British company.

A judge had put the execution on hold because she said she was “left to speculate” whether this drug was safe for its intended use.

The drug was being used to put someone to DEATH, and the liberals were worried about its safety? What in the hell does that even mean?

So let me get this straight… if the drug worked as it was intended, the result would be death. If it was faulty or unsafe, the result could be… death.

Arguing over the safety of a drug administered to kill someone makes about as much sense as swabbing the site of the lethal injection with alcohol to prevent infection.

Flashback to January 4, 2007, when Nancy Pelosi gave her inaugural address as the new Speaker of the House:

“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”

At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).

This was, of course, the same speech that included her promise to drain the ethics swamp…

“In order to achieve our new America for the 21st century, we must return this House to the American people. So our first order of business is passing the toughest congressional ethics reform in history. This new Congress doesn’t have 2 years or 200 days. Let us join together in the first 100 hours to make this Congress the most honest and open Congress in history. 100 hours.”

Again… nevermiiiiiind.

But as her party defends its record with its majority in jeopardy, two prominent Democrats await ethics trials. Two other party members gave Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to relatives. Most importantly, lobbyists, corporations and special interests still have unimpeded ways to buy access to members of Congress.
…
Rangel, former chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, is charged with financial and fundraising misconduct, and has acknowledged some ethical lapses.

Waters, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, is contesting allegations that she sought federal aid for a bank where her husband is an investor.

Recent news reports also revealed that Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., awarded Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to relatives. The foundation has close ties to the Congressional Black Caucus, although it is run separately as a tax-exempt organization.

And last week former lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti, who helped defense clients secure government contracts, pleaded guilty to illegally funneling more than $380,000 in campaign contributions to House members controlling the Pentagon’s budget. Three top Democrats he worked with - Jim Moran of Virginia, Peter Visclosky of Indiana and the late John Murtha of Pennsylvania - directed $137 million in defense contracts to the lobbyist’s clients.

Warning: file_get_contents(http://webbiscuits.net/images/blank.gif) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: Connection refused in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/index.php on line 36